Is there an implicit comparison between the lines of Cain and Seth?

Question

Many commentators note that the lineage of Cain in Genesis 4 is followed by a genealogy of Seth in Genesis 5 and compare the two lines, treating Cain's line as godless and Seth's line as godly. This particularly appears, for example, in some discussions of Genesis 6:2 and the nature of the sons of God and the daughters of men.

Of course the narrator is silent in making explicit comparisons of the two, but are there exegetical reasons to see (or not see) an implicit comparison between the line of Cain and the line of Seth?

Answer 1

There is no comparison between the genealogy of chapters four and five, however there is a comparison being made between the genealogy of chapters four and the end of chapter four

Genesis 4 17-18a (ESV)

17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad,

Genesis 4 25-26b (ESV)

25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed[g] for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.” 26 To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh.

Genesis 5 3-8 (ESV)

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters. 5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.

6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he fathered Enosh. 7 Seth lived after he fathered Enosh 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Thus all the days of Seth were 912 years, and he died.

It is obvious that Genesis 5 is not like Genesis 4. However, the two genealogies in chapter four are similar and often where the second disagrees it disagrees in a way that brings one's attention back to Cain (Adam knows Eve again, Seth has a child also, Seth is so called because Cain killed his brother Abel.

The similarities are obvious, in both cases the genealogy begins with the patriarch knowing his wife, with the following children/child coming out of the resultant son. In addition, after Cain's genealogy to Lamech's children is Lamech boasting his sinful boast. While after the Adam to Enosh genealogy we aretold "At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord." (ESV), a very clear contrast. (Chapter Five begins 'This is the book of the generations of Adam.' (ESV) so it is not misleading to hold it distinct from chapter four.)

We can conclude that the author is not making an implicit comparison in chapter five to Cain's genealogy on the basis of lacking these commonalities that we see in the Adam line where the author is making an implicit comparison. And so, Augustine is not wrong to see a distinction between the rotten line of Cain and the good line of Seth, but it is not in chapter five, but later in chapter four.

Answer 2

The following approach is based on the Biblical commentary of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch a 19th century commentator who belonged to a movement that sought to make the Bible and religion more accessible to then modern man. Hirsch followed a long exegetical line that

          biblical names indicate attributes. 

This is seen explicitly at times; for example Jacob is called Jacob because he grabs his brother (Esau, enemy)by the heal perhaps symbolic of his life. Using this idea, we see that

            Genealogies  indicate community life cycles

In other words, each generation has a certain attribute and the sequence of attributes indicates the life cycle of the community. Using this idea we can approximately summarize both the life cycle of Kayin and Seth. There are many similarities and also divergences. Kayin’s lifecycle is as follows

          Possession--> education--> wild-assed---> Forget about God--> 
          The masses ask/grope for meaning--> leadership

For example, if a previous generation has possessions, this could naturally lead to the subsequent generation seeking education (to preserve societal wealth). This education can lead to self-sufficiency; first there is a generation of wildness (since people are educated, they know it all) followed by forgetting about God.

In arriving at these translations I have used pretty standard biblical terms. Chanoch is in fact the biblical root for education (or training). A transposition of lemech is melech indicating a search for leadership.

A similar analysis applied to Seth's genealogy as follows

          Foundation--->Helpless man---> possession---> praise God---> 
          depression--->education---> masses spread---> leaders

One can then search for parallels in both community cycles as well as divergences. I personally don’t see one as more religious than the other

In presenting this idea I regard it as precisely that: An idea that can be developed in multiple ways but nevertheless points to certain underlying communal lifecycle patterns.

I want to thank Nigel J. for raising in a comment the interesting question: Is this serious exegetical work (“hermeneutical analysis” ) or is it “opinion and interpretation.”

He is correct. I should not have left this out of the post and therefore am adding it.

I believe the above approach presented by me is serious exegetical work. I therefore have to justify this type of genre. Before doing so I point out the obvious: It is not a grammatical or linguistic genre of exegesis. I haven't spoken about the meaning of words in Hebrew or other languages; nor have I spoken about the conjugation of verbs.

The approach I used is symbolic. Symbolism may or may not be justified. There are biblical passages which are clearly symbolic as interpreted by all scholars, all religions, and all periods One such passage is Ecclesiastes 11:9 - 12:7.

The opening verses say, "You can enjoy yourself in youth but you will have to pay; remember your creator while young before years come [old age] in which you say I have no desire to live.”

Thus the symbolic theme is clearly identified. Every commenter takes the passage this way. Certain things are clear: "[Remember your creator before...] the grinders cease" undoubtedly refers to loss of teeth in old age.

But although we are certain of the meaning of certain symbolic passages there are others which have ambiguity (What does "silver cord breaking" and "golden bowl breaking" symbolize).

What we can conclude is that

*Certain passages are universally agreed as symbolic *In such passages the symbolic meaning of some phrases is unambiguous *The symbolic meaning of other phrases is doubtful (subject to multiple interpretations)

The fact that symbolism is not as precise as grammar should not deter us from analyzing such passages. We can say the following about the genealogies in Gen. 4 and 5.

Many verses explicitly indicate that "he called his name" is equivalent more to "he nicknamed him"; his name reflects attributes of the person or generation. Some examples are Gen 10:25 "He called his name "split" because the world "split" in his day or Gen 5:29 He call his name "rest" ...this [person] will comfort us [give us rest] from our work and toil and the ground God cursed.”

Thus, it is a reasonable exegetical exercise to say that names reflect attributes and the biblical narrative should be read that way. But then we are in the same situation as Ecclesiastes 12. We know there is a message here but not certain of the meaning of every phrase.

Like Ecclesiastes 12 we can be certain of the symbolic meanings of certain names. Chanoch means training; Eyrad is similar enough to Erod to justify the interpretation "wild-ass" All I have done above is take the most reasonable translations of various names and see them as part of a communal life cycle. If I was writing a paper I would then have to document how these life cycles are present throughout history. But I think this is plausible.

I believe this a serious exegetical approach (with emphasis on the word “approach” versus a completed interpretation). I also believe that too often biblical scholars dismiss a symbolic passage as "a matter of interpretation" when in fact certainties may be inferred.

Answer 3

The first Enoch and Lamech appear in the lineage of Cain in Genesis 4, which traces what Augustine referred to as the "rotten line of Cain." This genealogy begins after Cain is banished by God for killing his brother Abel: "Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. To Enoch was born Irad..." (Gen 4:17-18) It then continues down to "Lamech [who] took two wives" (Gen 4:19) and made a boastful and violent speech (Gen 4:23-24). In contrast, Genesis 5 provides a second genealogy, tracing the lineage from Adam through his third son Seth, representing the more righteous line: "When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth." (Gen 5:3) This genealogy also includes an Enoch, several generations after Seth: "When Jared had lived 162 years, he fathered Enoch." (Gen 5:18) And a Lamech is mentioned as well, as the father of Noah: "When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son and called his name Noah..." (Gen 5:28-29) So in summary, while bearing the same names, the Enoch and Lamech in Genesis 4 are from the line of Cain and distinct from the later Enoch and Lamech in the lineage of Seth detailed in Genesis 5. The repetition of names may be a literary device drawing contrasts between the two lines, but they refer to two sets of different individuals in two divergent genealogies - one representing estrangement from God and the other a preserved righteous remnant. The genealogy of Cain is part of the "generations of the heavens and the earth" (Gen 2:4), while the genealogy of Seth begins the "generations of Adam" (Gen 5:1).

Answer 4

Gen 4:17

And CAIN knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare <3205> Enoch : and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Gen 4:18

And unto Enoch was born <3205> Irad: and Irad begat <3205>Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.

Gen 5:18

And JARED lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat <3205> Enoch :

Gen 4:18

And unto Enoch was born <3205> Irad: and Irad begat <3205>Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat LAMECH

Gen 5:25

And METHSULAH lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat <3205> LAMECH: Gen 4:18

And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and METHUSAEL begat <3205 Lamech.

Answer 5

in Genesis 4 and 5 are indeed distinct individuals, not the same people appearing in different genealogies. Let's examine the verses you cited: First, in the lineage of Cain in Genesis 4: "And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch." (Gen 4:17, KJV) "And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech." (Gen 4:18, KJV) Then, in the lineage of Seth in Genesis 5: "And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:" (Gen 5:18, KJV) "And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:" (Gen 5:25, KJV)

The placement of Enoch and Lamech in completely different lines of descent, with different ancestors and descendants, makes it clear that Genesis is referring to two separate Enochs and Lamechs. The Enoch in Genesis 4 is the son of Cain, while the Enoch in Genesis 5 is the great-great-great-grandson of Seth. Similarly, the Lamech of Cain's line is the great-great-grandson of Enoch son of Cain, while the Lamech descended from Seth is the son of Methuselah, who has no connection to Cain's lineage. Furthermore, the Methusael who fathers Lamech in Genesis 4:18 is a different individual than the Methuselah who fathers the other Lamech in Genesis 5:25.

So in conclusion, the King James Version provides clear textual evidence that the Enoch and Lamech appearing early in Cain's lineage in Genesis 4 are not the same Enoch and Lamech appearing later in Seth's lineage in Genesis 5. They are two sets of distinct individuals who happen to bear the same names, located in two separate lines of descent that diverge in the aftermath of Cain slaying Abel. The repetition of the names may serve a literary purpose in contrasting the two lineages, but they do not refer to the same people.

Answer 6

 The two genealogies of Cain and Seth are indeed implicitly connected. Furthermore, they each play a central role in connecting the fall of man in the garden of Eden with the eventual calling of Abram in Chapter 12. Throughout the first eleven chapters there are several stories that share some common themes. However, the general trend is that man is moving further away from God each time he settles on the land. 
 This idea of settling can be seen in several places. The first is the garden of Eden itself. The garden was located in the East of Eden. Gen 2:8 God places Man there to work it and keep it. Gen 2:15 God creates woman as a companion for Man. Gen 2:18  It was good for a time then something went horribly wrong, and they were cast out of the Garden of Eden. Gen 3:23-24 The story of Cain and Abel is also related to settling. Cain was settled on the land as he was raising his food from the ground in contrast to Abel who kept flocks. Gen 4:2 Abel most likely migrated with his flocks as opposed to being tied to the land. This story too ends in tragedy. Gen 4:8 After killing his brother Abel, Gen 4:8 most likely because of jealousy Gen 4:5, he resettles in in the land of Nod east of Eden. Gen 4:16  We are then told that Cain was building a city. Gen 4:17  He named his city after his first son Enoch.Gen 4:17 This is the beginning of the Cain Genealogy. After both genealogies of Cain and Seth we have the story of Noah and the Ark. Gen 6-9 The Ark settles on the land Gen 8:4, Noah plants a vinyard Gen 9:20 and again awful things happen. Gen 9:24 Finally, we have the story of the tower of Babel where man makes yet another attempt to settle on the land. "Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth." Gen 11:4-5 In each of these examples of settling there were consequences. Finally at the end of chapter 11 of Genesis Abram is settled with his family in Haran. Gen 11:31. It is from here that God calls Abram to "Leave your Country, your people and your fathers household and go to the land I will show you" Gen 12:1 Abram obeys God and leaves Haran for Canaan. Gen 12:4-5
 The genealogies of Cain and Seth are placed near the middle of all of the examples of settling listed above. They serve as a bridge from a creation that is destroyed in the flood. Gen 7:21 to one that is recreated. Gen 8:15. 
 The genealogies contained in Genesis chapters four, five and eleven   make use of special numbers called sacred numbers and preferred numbers.  The ancient writers of Genesis used both sacred numbers such as 60, 600 and 3600 and preferred numbers such as three, seven, 12 and 40. There is a helpful article written by Carol A. Hill called Making Sense of the Numbers of Genesis. 2003. This article helps explain much better than I can the importance of these numbers in their world view. The Mesopotamian's used a Sexagesimal numbering system with 60 as its base. We still use this system today; it is how we keep track of time. When we see the numbers given for the ages of the patriarchs many of them are based on the sacred or preferred numbers and not meant to be taken literally. 
 When comparing Cain's (Gen 4:17-24) and Seth's genealogy (Gen 4:25-5:32), by generation they seam to merge in the fifth generation from Adam. There may be a chaism present. The names either match exactly or are very similar to one another. The Chaism starts further apart at first. Enoch in the third generation from Adam on Cains line (Gen 4:17) and Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam on Seth's line (Gen 5:18).  Irad in Cain's line (Gen 4:18) and Jared in Seth's (Gen 5:15). Finally, with Mehujael (5th from Adam) in Cain's line (Gen 4:18) lines up with Mahalalel (5th from Adam) in Seths line. (Gen 5:12) Mehujael and Mahalalel are the center of the Chaism. 
   Mehujael's name means destroyed by God or smitten by God in Hebrew and Mahalalel's name means praise God. (Abarim-publication.com) If Mehujael was destroyed, why, and for what purpose? To help with this question I have put together a set of knowns from Gen 1-11. For example, we know Cain was building a city and he names the city after his first son Enoch. Gen 4:17   This is important because we see Enoch in both Seth's (Gen 5:18) and Cain's (Gen 4:17) genealogy and it is spelled exactly the same in both. Lamech is also listed in both and spelled exactly the same in both genealogies (Gen 4-5). Both Lamech and Enoch stand out when  we compare the genealogies of Cain and Seth to one another. The third clue comes when we take a close look at the numbers given for the age the son was born and how many years they had left after the son was born. These numbers can be lined up in columns with the number of years left after the first son born on the left. The middle is reserved for the year the son was born and finally the right had side for the total years lived. When this grid is constructed, a picture emerges. The top portion is a 3 X 4 grid of Cain's City that is destroyed. All four numbers on the left hand side beginning with Seth all begin with an 8 or two cubed. They are also bracketed by 800's on the top and bottom. The 800's being how many years Adam and Jared had to live after their first son was born. Gen5:4:Gen5:19  Three of the four numbers on the right begin with a 9. The one that does not is for Mahalalel where he lives to be 895. Gen 5:16 This is out of step with the other ages of Seth 912 , Enosh 905, Kenan 910. All the others begin with a nine. Here we have an out of place number exactly placed in the center of the chaism. The numbers on the left and right that are similar to one another seam to paint a picture of a wall in my mind. Especially after being told that Cain is building a city. Gen 4:17.  Walls in which are contained symbolic numbers or preferred numbers such as 07,12,15,05,40,10 and 30 that were important to the Hebrew people and also all but the number 07 are divisible by 60 (Hexadecimal). The 95 does seam out of place as it does not represent importance to the Hewbrew people and also it does not fit into the hexadecimal system.   
 Jared is in the sixth generation from Adam where he may represent a transitional figure to a new city. He functions as a transition from a city that was destroyed in the 5th generation to something new.  The new place/city starts in the seventh generation from Adam with Enoch. Gen 5:18.  The new place ends with Lamech. Gen 5:25.  The city is therefore square. It's dimensions are 3 X 3. Each of the numbers may have symbolic meaning. The  numbers are 300,65,365 (Enoch) ,782,187,969 (Methuselah),595,182,777 (Lamech). If we start with Enoch's numbers he has 300 years to live after the first son is born. The number 300 is recorded 62 times in the King James Bible. (Bible study.org). I associate this number with victory, such as when Gideon was able to defeat a much larger foe the Midianites with only 300 men. Judges 8 The 65 serves as a bridge from the destroyed city to the new one. This can be seen easily by viewing the number grid. The 365 represents a completeness such as a complete solar cycle of 365 days per year. Methuselah had 782 years after his son was born. This may be a reference to Psalm 82 "God presides in the great assembly he gives judgement among the gods" The 187 may be a reference to Psalm 87. "He set his foundation on the holy mountain".  The 969 for Methuselahs death puts him dying in the exact year of the flood. Finally Lamech, the 595 may point to the out of place stone in the destroyed city of Cain the age of Mahalalel when he died 895. When these two ages are subtracted from one another it equals exactly 300. I am uncertain as to the meaning of this but it does match Enoch's number of 300.    
 There is also an apparent merging of Cain's and Seth's genealogy in that it appears that Lamech's (Cain side) daughter Naamah and his granddaughters may have been the wives of Noah and his son's respectively. We are told that the Son's of God married the daughters of men. Gen 6:1-2 If Cain's side represents the daughters of men then this would make sense. Naamah is born as a daughter of man (Lamech-Cain's line), In contrast Noah is born as a Son of God (Lamech-Seth's line). It almost looks like Noah and Naamah may be the new Adam and Eve. Eve was born or created from the rib of a man Adam. Gen 2:21-23   God may be starting over with a new creation, and they are leaving the rebuilt city of God that has some resemblance to the garden of Eden. Lamech and Enoch may indeed be the cherubim guarding the way on the east side of the garden. Gen 3:24 That would make Methuselah (man of the javelin) the flaming sword. Gen 2:24  Lamech thus becomes a pivotal figure in this story. Like Enoch, Lamech is spelled exactly the same in both genealogies. Lamech (Seths side) brings us a blessing with Noah. The other Lamech (Cain's side) comes with a troubled past in that he killed a man a young man (most likely Enoch of Seth's line) for wounding him. Gen 4:23  Is there grace for Lamech in that his descendants through his daughters may have survived the flood? Much like the grace that was afforded Cain after he killed Abel. Gen 4:8.  God placed a mark on him. Gen 4:15. The numbers may be there to paint a picture and help add to the story.  Jared Turner                    
    
       

Answer 7

Not between Cain and Seth, but between Adam and Enosh. R. Sacks (The Lion and the Ass, page 79) points out that Adam and Enosh both mean 'man' in the Hebrew language. This allows us to create the following parallel

In this comparison, we see that the descendants of Man (Adam) and Enosh form parallels, except for the precise crossover of three sets of names. Sacks says we can see that the crossover is intentional, because both Enoch (column 1) and Mahalaleel (column 2) were 65 years old at the birth of their first sons.

Leon R. Kass says, in The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis, page 157, that "Some evidence can be adduced that it is the line of Cain that are the sons of God." On page 157, Kass says "There is equal if not greater evidence on the other side" - the line of Seth.